Supreme Court case information
Listed below are the substantive Supreme Court cases for the year along with appeals still to be determined or cases awaiting hearing.
Information giving an overview of the case is included along with media releases and links to judgments being appealed when available.
All 2024 - 2014 Supreme Court cases dismissed or deemed to be dismissed where a notice of abandonment was received can be found here.
Transcripts for cases heard before the Supreme Court are included provided they are not suppressed. Transcripts from pre-trial hearings are not published until the final disposition of trial. These are unedited transcripts and they are not a formal record of the Court’s proceedings. The Ministry of Justice does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any material and recommends that users exercise their own skill and care with respect to its use.
11 July 2024
Case information summary 2024 (as at 5 July 2024) – Cases where leave granted (123 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 5 July 2024) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)
All years
Case name
Quentin Woods v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 115/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing – Special conditions – Residential restrictions – Intensive monitoring – Sentencing Act 2002, s 93(2B) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that s 93(2B) of the Sentencing Act permits imposition of conditions similar to residential restrictions and intensive monitoring – Whether the Court erred in holding that the special conditions imposed on the appellant did not amount to residential restrictions or intensive monitoring.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Woods v New Zealand Police [2019] NZCA 446).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicant’s appeals.
13 February 2020
________________________________
The appeal is allowed.
10 December 2020
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicant’s appeals.
13 February 2020
________________________________
The appeal is allowed.
10 December 2020
Date of hearing
21 May 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Arnold JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 21 May 2020 (PDF, 399 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 141 (PDF, 190 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Lambie Trustee Limited v Prudence Anne Addleman
Case number
SC 118/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted on whether the Court of Appeal was correct to order the applicant to disclose to the respondent any legal opinions and other advice obtained by the trustees of the Lambie Trust and funded by the Trust (Addleman v Lambie Trustee Ltd [2019] NZCA 480, (2019) 5 NZTR 29-016).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reject the applicant’s claims of legal advice privilege and litigation privilege respectively.
C In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
4 March 2020
______________________
A With the clarification that the orders for disclosure made by the Court of Appeal do not extend to legal advice given from June 2015 in connection with this litigation and with leave reserved to Lambie Trustee Ltd to revert to this Court in relation to advice received after 7 November 2014 and before June 2015, the appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
1 June 2021
__________________________________
A Mrs Addleman is to receive out of the Lambie Trust her actual costs in relation to the appeal to this Court plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary). We allow for second counsel. Mrs Addleman is to provide a schedule of the costs incurred to Lambie Trustee Ltd within 10 working days of the date of delivery of this judgment. Any issue as to the reasonableness of the costs sought is to be determined by the Registrar.
B Lambie Trustee Ltd is not entitled to any indemnity for costs and expenses in connection with the appeal to this Court, including both its own legal fees and any solicitor client costs and disbursements due to Mrs Addleman.
C Lambie Trustee Ltd is to reimburse the Lambie Trust (from funds not sourced from the Trust) the costs awarded by this Court on the appeal.
D The orders of this Court at B and C, above, apply to the award of costs in the Court of Appeal.
E Mrs Addleman is entitled to costs on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements in relation to costs in the High Court. Orders B and C, above, apply to the award of costs in that Court.
17 February 2023
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reject the applicant’s claims of legal advice privilege and litigation privilege respectively.
C In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
4 March 2020
______________________
A With the clarification that the orders for disclosure made by the Court of Appeal do not extend to legal advice given from June 2015 in connection with this litigation and with leave reserved to Lambie Trustee Ltd to revert to this Court in relation to advice received after 7 November 2014 and before June 2015, the appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
1 June 2021
__________________________________
A Mrs Addleman is to receive out of the Lambie Trust her actual costs in relation to the appeal to this Court plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary). We allow for second counsel. Mrs Addleman is to provide a schedule of the costs incurred to Lambie Trustee Ltd within 10 working days of the date of delivery of this judgment. Any issue as to the reasonableness of the costs sought is to be determined by the Registrar.
B Lambie Trustee Ltd is not entitled to any indemnity for costs and expenses in connection with the appeal to this Court, including both its own legal fees and any solicitor client costs and disbursements due to Mrs Addleman.
C Lambie Trustee Ltd is to reimburse the Lambie Trust (from funds not sourced from the Trust) the costs awarded by this Court on the appeal.
D The orders of this Court at B and C, above, apply to the award of costs in the Court of Appeal.
E Mrs Addleman is entitled to costs on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements in relation to costs in the High Court. Orders B and C, above, apply to the award of costs in that Court.
17 February 2023
Date of hearing
02 December 2020
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 2 December 2020 (PDF, 492 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 54 (PDF, 401 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Summary
Case name
W(SC 122/2019) v The Queen
Case number
SC 122/2019
Summary
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of retrial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
Result
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of retrial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
14 February 2020
14 February 2020
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Summary
Case name
SHAY O’ CARROLL v the Queen
Case number
SC 129/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against a decision of the High Court – Whether s 155 of the Cook Islands Act 1915 (NZ) provides a jurisdictional bar to the imposition of a sentence of home detention
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Carroll v R [2019] NZCA 657).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
C Bail is extended on the same conditions until the determination of the appeal.
5 March 2020
________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment is quashed and a sentence of 10 months’ home detention is substituted. The sentence is subject to the conditions listed at [55] of the judgment.
14 September 2020
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
C Bail is extended on the same conditions until the determination of the appeal.
5 March 2020
________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment is quashed and a sentence of 10 months’ home detention is substituted. The sentence is subject to the conditions listed at [55] of the judgment.
14 September 2020
Date of hearing
11 June 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 11 June 2020 (PDF, 184 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 92 (PDF, 153 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
SHAY O’ CARROLL v R [2020] NZSC 15 [5 March 2020] (PDF, 31 KB)
Substantive judgment
SHAY O’CARROLL v R [2020] NZSC 92 (PDF, 104 KB)
Case name
M v The Queen
Case number
SC 7/2018
Summary
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF RETRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.
Result
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF RETRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
High/District Court judgment
Not publicly available
Case name
Northland Environmental Protection Society Incorporated v The Chief Executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries, Comptroller of Customs and The Chief Executive of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage
Case number
SC 10/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Forests Act 1949 and the Protected Objects Act 1975
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Northland Environmental Protection Society Incorporated v Chief Executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries [2017] NZCA 607).
B The approved questions are:
(a) Was the Court of Appeal correct in its interpretation of “finished or manufactured indigenous timber product” and the effect of the export restrictions in s 67C of the Forests Act 1949?
(b) Was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that some or all swamp kauri is not a “protected New Zealand object” as defined in s 2(1) of the Protected Objects Act 1975?
19 April 2018
___________________________
A The appeal relating to the interpretation of the export restriction in s 67C(1)(b) of the Forests Act 1949 is allowed.
B The appeal relating to the Protected Objects Act 1975 is dismissed.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
B The approved questions are:
(a) Was the Court of Appeal correct in its interpretation of “finished or manufactured indigenous timber product” and the effect of the export restrictions in s 67C of the Forests Act 1949?
(b) Was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that some or all swamp kauri is not a “protected New Zealand object” as defined in s 2(1) of the Protected Objects Act 1975?
19 April 2018
___________________________
A The appeal relating to the interpretation of the export restriction in s 67C(1)(b) of the Forests Act 1949 is allowed.
B The appeal relating to the Protected Objects Act 1975 is dismissed.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 June 2018 (PDF, 394 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 105 (PDF, 61 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust v Minister of Conservation, Fullers Group Limited and Motutapu Island Restoration Trust
Case number
SC 11/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Conservation Act 1987 and Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that concessions to conduct guided tours over Rangitoto and Motutapu could be granted despite iwi objections.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust v Minister of Conservation [2017] NZCA 613).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal of the applicant to that Court.
8 May 2018
______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B We direct that the second respondent’ s application for a concession be reconsidered by the first respondent’ s delegate in light of this judgment. The licence awarded to the second respondent on 31 August 2015 will remain in force until that reconsideration has occurred.
C The decision of the first respondent’s delegate granting a permit to the third respondent dated 15 October 2015 is quashed. We direct that the third respondent’s application for a concession be reconsidered by the first respondent’s delegate in light of this judgment.
D Costs are reserved.
14 December 2018
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal of the applicant to that Court.
8 May 2018
______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B We direct that the second respondent’ s application for a concession be reconsidered by the first respondent’ s delegate in light of this judgment. The licence awarded to the second respondent on 31 August 2015 will remain in force until that reconsideration has occurred.
C The decision of the first respondent’s delegate granting a permit to the third respondent dated 15 October 2015 is quashed. We direct that the third respondent’s application for a concession be reconsidered by the first respondent’s delegate in light of this judgment.
D Costs are reserved.
14 December 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 14 August 2018 (PDF, 646 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 122 (PDF, 260 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Colin Graeme Craig v Jordan Henry Williams
Case number
SC 21/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Defamation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the decision of the High Court to order a full retrial – (cross-appeal) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’ s order setting aside the jury’s verdict on damages.
Result
A Leave to appeal and leave to cross appeal is granted (Williams v Craig [2018] NZCA 31).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the appeal to that Court in part and dismissing the cross appeal to that Court.
4 July 2018
_________________
A The appeal is allowed. The orders of the Court of Appeal entering judgment for the respondent on liability and directing a retrial of the respondent’s claim for damages are set aside. An order for a general retrial on liability and damages is substituted.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
D The costs award made in the Court of Appeal is set aside. If costs in that Court cannot be agreed they should be set by the Court of Appeal in light of this judgment. Any costs issues arising in the High Court shall be considered by the High Court in light of this judgment.
11 April 2019
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the appeal to that Court in part and dismissing the cross appeal to that Court.
4 July 2018
_________________
A The appeal is allowed. The orders of the Court of Appeal entering judgment for the respondent on liability and directing a retrial of the respondent’s claim for damages are set aside. An order for a general retrial on liability and damages is substituted.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
D The costs award made in the Court of Appeal is set aside. If costs in that Court cannot be agreed they should be set by the Court of Appeal in light of this judgment. Any costs issues arising in the High Court shall be considered by the High Court in light of this judgment.
11 April 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 4-5 September 2018 (PDF, 895 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 38 (PDF, 293 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Additional document
Case name
Jeremy James McGuire v The Secretary for Justice
Case number
SC 22/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Legal Services Act 2011 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out the applicant’s application for judicial review – Whether a self-represented litigant who is a practising lawyer can receive a costs award.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (McGuire v The Secretary for Justice [2018] NZCA 37)
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal
12 June 2018
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
27 November 2018
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal
12 June 2018
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
27 November 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1 August 2018 (PDF, 407 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 116 (PDF, 293 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
H v The Queen
Case number
SC 34/2018
Summary
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment or any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the retrial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted.
Result
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment or any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the retrial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted.
17 July 2018
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
District Court/High Court judgment
Not publicly available
Page 22 of 68